Disclaimer

The material in this essay is for educational
purposes only
and not to be construed as legal advice about what you should or should not do.
The information herein is to assist you in performing your own due diligence
before implementing any strategy. Formal
notice is hereby given that:

You have 10 days after reviewing any material
on this web site to notify Truth Sets Us Free (TSUF) in writing of any word,
phrase, reference or statement which is inaccurate, incorrect, misleading or
not in full compliance with state and federal law and to give TSUF 30 days to correct
and cure any alleged potential flaw. TSUF’s intent is to be in strict
compliance with the law.

In this essay we will examine the evidence that the
government owes each American a huge debt and that this debt can be used as an
alternative to using Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) to discharge our debts. In
order to best understand the material in this essay, you should have already
read the articles on “U. S. Bankruptcy,” “Federal Reserve,” and “Meet Your
Straw Man”.

Throughout this document we will be quoting various sources.
The quotes will be shown in blue ink and a “sans serif” font. The regular text of this
essay and comments in the midst of quoted text will be shown in black ink and a
“serif” font. I will also occasionally underline certain text to draw your
attention to key phrases.

Editor’s Note from Educated in Law: The current WordPress editor makes it difficult to change the color of part of a paragraph. Therefore, within a blue-text paragraph, there may be a bracketed sentence that originally was black. Also, I formatted as blue most but not all of the text that is blue in the PDF.

Constitutional Money

We will begin our study of this subject with a review of
what the Constitution has to say about money.

No State shall … make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
payment of Debts… [Article 1, Section 10, clause 1]

From these quotes we can conclude that the people have
delegated power to Congress to coin money, and set its value. The States also
formed an agreement agreeing that only gold and silver coins would be valid
payment of debts. This concept of paying a debt will be very important to our
discussion, so let’s see how “pay” is defined.

Pay. To discharge a debt by tender of payment due; to deliver to a
creditor the value of a debt, either in money or in goods, for his acceptance. [Black’s
Law Dictionary 5th Edition]

While the above definition uses the word “discharge,” we do
not believe that “pay” and “discharge” carry the same meaning. You will notice
that pay carries with it the concept of “deliver to the creditor the value of a
debt, either in money or in goods.” This means that “pay” includes the concept
of “exchange.”

Exchange. To barter; to swap. To part with, give or transfer for an
equivalent… [Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition]

So the idea of an exchange is one in which two parties transfer items one to the other for like value. We conclude from this definition that an exchange pays a debt in full. Both parties received something of equal value. Now let’s look at the definition for “discharge.”

It is clear from this definition that “discharge” is very
different from “pay”. It is evident that there is no exchange of equal value
occurring when a debt is discharged.

The system that was set when our republic was founded
allowed people to “pay” their debts. Gold and silver both are substances that
have been recognized to have intrinsic value for thousands of years. If someone
wanted to buy a cow and a price of $20 was agreed to between the buyer and the
seller, an exchange takes place between the parties when the buyer exchanges
the $20 gold piece for the cow.

Our concept of money has changed from the founding of our
country from being gold and silver coins to paper money not backed by gold
(fiat money). These concepts began to change after the Civil War.

Legal Tender Cases

During the Civil War, the US government issued “green backs”
which was money backed by nothing, fiat money. This was a significant change
from the systems that was established in the Constitution. These green backs
were very similar to our current Federal Reserve Notes. There were a number
legal cases that ruled on the constitutionality of the green back
currency. In each of the initial cases,
the courts ruled that the green backs were unconstitutional. But the Knox v.
Lee case reversed the prior decisions of the Supreme Court. This case decided
that the government could issue “legal tender” that is not backed by gold and
silver thus paving the way of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 and the
“confiscation” of the gold in 1933.

The following excerpts are taken from the case. In order to understand this decision, it is important to realize that the Supreme Court was acting as a Court of Equity, which operates under different rules than a common law court. The presumption in a court of equity is that the government is sovereign, owning everything, and that the defendant and the plaintiff are US citizens. As citizens, they are both viewed as debtors to the sovereign government. The court that covers actions between two debtors in the US is an admiralty court which operates under equity rules. Given this presumption, it is perfectly valid for the court to make decisions regarding who owes who what debt. The court is acting like a parent who resolves disputes between two children over who has the right to a toy that both children want. The court believes it is right and fitting for them to tell the parties what the sovereign (government) wants done with the assets that they (the plaintiff and defendant) are using. The argument presented by the Attorney General Akerman reflects this attitude of sovereignty resting with the government. Akerman suggests why the national government should be able to issue paper currency that is not backed by gold.

Congress … to exercise a power conferred by the Constitution, [then] the means which it selects are constitutional, whatever may be the opinion of the court of its practical wisdom, because the decision, whether practically conducive to the end proposed, is a political and administrative question, and not a judicial one … If the government needed gold, and it was in the possession of A, it could take it from him, as they could take his personal service, against his will, or could batter down his house, if it stood in the way of military operations. [Continued below; Attorney General Akerman; Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 287, 304, 12 Wall. 457-681 (1870)]

[Much of what is done that seems to violate the Constitution is done under the “law of necessity” which derives its authority from military or martial law. This case was after the Civil War had concluded but the Attorney General is arguing as if the war was still being fought.]

If A had said, “I owe this gold to B, and am on my way to pay him my debt,” the officers of the government could accompany him to his creditor, and when the payment was made, seize it from him. What difference does it make whether it was the form in which it was done, or whether it was taken from A, and there was furnished him certifies that the money belonged to B, and intended for him, was taken by the government, which would he responsible to B for its payment? [Attorney General Akerman; Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 287, 304, 12 Wall. 457-681 (1870)]

Akerman is suggesting that since the government has the
right to take the gold, it doesn’t matter if they take it from person “A”, the
debtor, or if the take it from person “B”, the creditor. Akerman’s presumption
is that the government has the right to the gold. If the government does have
the right to the gold, then they can just give “A” a piece of paper, a
certificate or legal tender, that “A” can give to “B”. Ackerman suggests there
is no difference. If the government took the gold and other substance based
money, then the government would be responsible for all debts because they took
the substance based money out of circulation. The government is giving a
certificate in its place. Since the government removed the ability of the
people to pay, the government is responsible for the debt. If the government
took the gold out of circulation, it would be responsible for all debts because
the government is the only one with the ability to pay. No one else has
anything of substance with which to pay. You have heard it said that “he who
had the gold makes the rules.” But it can also be said that “he who has the
gold pays.”

The following excerpt from the Knox v. Lee case shows how
the composition of the court was changed in order to get the desired ruling.

A majority of the court five to four, in the opinion which has just
been read, reverses the judgment rendered by the former majority of five to
three, in pursuance of an opinion formed after repeated arguments, at successive
terms, and careful consideration; and declares the legal tender clause to be
constitution; that is to say, that an act of Congress making promises to pay
dollars legal tender as coined dollars in payment of pre-existing debts is a
means appropriate and plainly adapted to the exercise of powers expressly
granted by the Constitution, and not prohibited itself by the Constitution but
consistent with its letter and spirit. And this reversal, unprecedented in the
history of the court, has been produced by no change in the opinions of those
who concurred in the former judgment. One closed an honorable judicial career
by resignation after the case had been decided, after the opinion had been read
and agreed to in conference, and after the day when it would have been
delivered in court, had not the delivery been postponed for a week to give time
for the preparation of the dissenting opinion. The court was then full, but the
vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Justice Grier having been subsequently
filled and an additional justice having been appointed under the act increasing
the number of judges to nine, which took effect on the first Monday of
December, 1869, the then majority find themselves in a minority of the court as
now constituted, upon the question. [The CHIEF JUSTICE, Chase, dissenting;
LEGAL TENDER CASES Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 287,319 (1870)]

But it has been claimed to be a proper regulation of commerce, for Congress to provide a uniform national currency; and that these legal tender notes were, in effect, a mortgage on the whole property of the nation [This is very similar what was said during testimony on the emergency banking legislation passed on March 9, 1933. See the quote below.] and therefore, the best secured and most uniform currency the nation could have. Although, in truth, the security for this or any national debt is exactly the extent to which the people will consent to contribute through taxation to its payment. [Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall. 287,298, (1870)]

The Knox v. Lee case set the stage for what happened in 1913
(Federal Reserve Act was passed, see the Federal Reserve article) and in 1933
when the country was taken off the gold standard.

Events of 1933

You may recall from the U.S. bankruptcy article that shortly
after Frank D. Roosevelt was inaugurated, he called a special session of
Congress. He asked Congress to pass emergency banking legislation. On, March 9,
1933, Congress passed the emergency measure that FDR requested declaring a
banking holiday. The fundamental nature of the banking systems was changed in
this legislation. As a result of the legislation, all banks had to become
members of the Federal Reserve system. This act further made the Federal
Reserve Note the only paper currency valid in the US. The Federal Reserve Notes
(FRN) were no longer going to be backed by gold but only by the credit of the
people and their property. A quote from the Congressional Record that occurred
during the debate on the bill demonstrates this fact.

The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is
backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other
property of all the people in the Nation. [Congressional Record, March 9, 1933, emphasis added]

This language sound very similar what was said in the Knox
v. Lee case shown above.

The next major change that occurred, was an Executive Order
issued on April 5, 1933. This order required all “individuals, partnerships, associations
and corporations” to turn in their gold. In the essay, “Meet Your Straw Man”,
we have already seen that “partnerships, associations and corporations” are
“legal fictions” created by the civil government. However, the term
“individual” and “person” are used in the order. What do these terms mean?

“Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as
distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a
partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive
signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in
proper cases, include artificial persons. See also Person.” [Black’s Law
Dictionary, 5th Edition]

“Person. In general usage, a human
being (i.e. natural person), though by
status term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships,
associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in
bankruptcy, or receivers.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

Natural person. Any human being
who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like
a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being so
recognized by law. [296 NY 395, 72 NE2d 716. Radin, Law Dictionary (1955)]

monster. A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a
lower animal… [2 Bl. Com. 24. Law Dictionary with Pronunciations by James
Ballentine, 1948 Edition]

Our conclusion is that “person”, and “individual” are terms
referring to legal fictions, or a straw man. Both of these words are also said
to be “natural persons” and as such are “members of the body politic owing
allegiance to the State.” These entities are created in and exist in the civil
society that we call “the public”. As such they are subject to the rules
established by their creators, the civil government. Men, on the other hand,
are outside of “the public”. You might think of “the public” as if it were a
“box” that contains only legal fictions and men live outside of this box. Since
the Executive Order applies to individuals and persons, by necessity, it did
not apply to men.

Below is the complete text of the Executive Order with some
imbedded comments.

Executive Order Of April 5,1933

UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE
PRESIDENT Issued April 5, 1933

All persons [The order applied to persons which did not include men. So when men turned in their gold, they did so voluntarily.] are requited to deliver ON OR BEFORE MAY 1, 1933, all GOLD COIN, GOLD BULLION, AND GOLD CERTIFICATES now owned by them to a Federal Reserve Bank, branch or agency, or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled “An Act to Provide Relief in the Existing Emergency in Banking, and for other purposes” [The “state of emergency,” due to the “law of necessity,” was used as an excuse for issuing the order.] in which Amendatory Act Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do declare that said national [The use of the word “national” seems to signify the civil government acting as sovereign while under the original intent of the Constitution the people were viewed as sovereign and the source of all authority.] emergency still continues to exist, and pursuant to said Section do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations, [The order only applies to these entities, but men were excluded from the order.] and hereby prescribe the following regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Order.

Section 1. For the purposes of this regulation the term “hoarding”
means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion or gold
certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade. The term
“person” means any individual, partnership, association or corporation. [Again, the
order applies only artificial entities and not to men.]

Section 2. All persons are
hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve
Bank or branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve
System all gold coins, gold bullion or gold certificates now owned by them or coming into
their ownership on or before April 23, 1933, except
the following:

(a) Such amount of gold as may be required for legitimate and customary use in industry, professions, or art within a reasonable time, excluding gold prior to refining and stocks of gold in reasonable amounts for the usual true requirements of owners mining and refining such gold.

(b) Gold coins and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100 belonging to any one person; and gold coin having a recognized special value to collectors or rare and unusual coins.

(c) Gold coin and bullion earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign government [Men are foreign to the government, they are outside “the box” or outside “the public.”.] (or foreign central bank or the Bank for International Settlements).

(d) Gold coin and bullion licensed for other proper transactions (not involving hoarding) including gold coin and bullion imported for re-export or held pending action on application for export license.

Section 3. Until otherwise ordered by any other person becoming the
owner of any gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates after April 23,1933,
shall within three days after receipt thereof, deliver the same in the manner
prescribed in Section 2: unless such gold coin, gold bullion or gold
certificates ore held for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (b),
or (c) of Section 2: or unless such gold coin, or gold bullion is held for
purposes specified in paragraph (d) of Section 2 and the person holding it is,
with respect to such gold coin or bullion, a licensee or applicant for license
pending action thereon.

Section 4. Upon receipt of gold coin, gold bullion or gold
certificates delivered to it in accordance with Section 2 or 3, the Federal
Reserve Bank or member bank will pay therefore
an equivalent amount of any form of coin or
currency coined or issued under the laws of the United States. [The value
of gold had been arbitrarily held to a fixed value by the Federal government.
It was not permitted to float in value as it is today. If someone turned in
$10,000 worth of gold, the banks would give an equivalent amount of currency.
On the surface, it would appear that value ($10,000 in gold) was given for
value ($10,000 in currency). However, the gold had real intrinsic value while
the currency was worthless paper. This was not
an exchange but rather a transfer of the
gold from men to the government.]

Section 5. Member banks shall
deliver all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates owned or received
by them (other than as exempted under the provisions of Section 2) to the
Federal Reserve Banks of their respective districts and receive credit or payment therefore. [This
indicates that the Federal Reserve Banks are holding the credits for the gold.]

Section 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, out of the sum made
available to the President by Section 301 of the Act of March 9, 1933, will in
all proper cases pay the reasonable costs of transportation of gold coin, gold
bullion or gold certificates delivered to a member bank or Federal Reserve bank
in accordance with Section 2, 3,or 5 hereof, including the cost of insurance,
protection, and such other incidental costs as may be necessary, upon
production of satisfactory evidence of such costs. Voucher forms for this
purpose may be procured from Federal Reserve Banks.

Section 7. In cases where the delivery of gold coin, gold bullion
or gold certificates by the owners thereof within the time set for the above
will involve extraordinary hardship or difficulty, the Secretary of the
Treasury may, in his discretion, extend the time within which such delivery
must be made. Applications for such extensions must be made in writing under
oath, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and filed with a Federal
Reserve Bank. Each application must state the date to which the extension is
desired, the amount and location of the gold coin, gold bullion and gold
certificates in respect of which such application is made and the facts showing
extension to be necessary to avoid extraordinary hardship or difficulty.

Section 8. The Secretary of the
Treasury is hereby authorized and empowered to issue such further
regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the purpose of this order and
to issue licenses there under, through such offices or agencies as he may
designate, including licenses permitting the Federal Reserve Banks and member
banks of the Federal Reserve System, in return for an equivalent amount of
other coin, currency or credit, to deliver, earmark or hold in trust [This is a vitally important concept. The Federal government
set up a trust where the Secretary of the Treasury is acting as the trustee.
The people voluntarily transferred their gold to the government. The gold and
perhaps was other things are the assets of the trust. The people would also be
the beneficiaries of this trust.] gold coin and bullion to or for persons
showing his need for the same for any of the purposes specified in Paragraphs
(a), (c) and (d) of Section 2 of these regulations.

Section 9. Whoever willfully violates any provision of this
Executive Order or of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license
issued there under may be fined not more than $10,000, or if a natural person,
may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both and any officer,
director or agency of any corporation who knowingly participates in any such
violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisoned, or both.

This order and these regulations may be modified or revoked at any
time.

FRANKLIN
D. ROOSEVELT

THE WHITE HOUSE

April 5,1933

Further Information Consult Your Local Bank

GOLD CERTIFICATES may be identified by the words “GOLD CERTIFICATE”
APPEARING THEREON. The serial number and the Treasury seal on the face of a
GOLD CERTIFICATE are printed in YELLOW. Be careful not to confuse GOLD
CERTIFICATES with other issues which are redeemable in gold but which are not GOLD CERTIFICATES. Federal Reserve Notes
and United States Notes are redeemable in gold but arenot “GOLD CERTIFICATES” and are
not required to be surrendered.

Special attention is directed to the exceptions allowed under

Section 2 of the
Executive Order

CRIMINAL.
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER

Our conclusion after analyzing the
order, is that men voluntarily gave up their gold, a substance with intrinsic
value, for worthless paper. The gold was held in trust for the people by the
government. The Secretary of the Treasury acts as the trustee of this trust.
The people, and by extension their children and heirs, are the beneficiaries of
this trust. This means we have a beneficial interest in the assets of the trust.
We will see later that other assets were also given to the government.

The next major step was making it illegal to require gold as
a valid form of payment for debts.

This was done by House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192. Below is
the complete text of HJR 192.

JOINT RESOLUTION TO SUSPEND THE GOLD

STANDARD AND ABROGATE THE GOLD CLAUSE

JUNE 5, 1933

H.J. Res. 192, 73rd Cong. 1st Session

Joint resolution
to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United State

Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affects the public
interest, and therefore subject to the proper regulation and restriction; and

Whereas the existing emergency [Again an
“emergency” was used as the excuse for the action.] has disclosed
that provisions of obligations which purport to
give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States,
or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the
power of the Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States,
and are inconsistent with the declared policy
[Congress
is setting a public policy which is defined as “principles and standards
regarded by the legislature or by the courts as being of fundamental concern to
the state and the whole society.” Black’s Law Dictionary 7th
Edition..] of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every
dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in the
payment of debts,

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that

every provision
contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the
obligee a right to require payments in gold
or a particular kind of coin or currency [Currency would include all of M1,
M2 and M3 money as defined by the Federal Reserve.], or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be
against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made
with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. [This clause
makes it contrary to public policy for any creditor to require payment in any
particular form. This means that no creditor can ask for payment by check,
cash, or cashiers check. It also means that they are not permitted to dishonor
a valid form of payment.] Every obligation,
heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision
is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged [You could no longer “pay off” a debt. You can only
discharge a debt.] upon payment,
dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency
which at time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. [Any valid
form of “legal tender” must be accepted to discharge a debt. The debt must be
discharged “dollar for dollar” which means that we discharge the exact amount
shown on a charging instrument (bill or invoice).] Any such
provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under
authority of the United States, is herby repealed, but the repeal of any such
provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in
such law.

As used in this resolution, the term ‘obligation’ means any
obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting
currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term ‘coin or
currency’ means coin or currency of the United States, including [The term
“including” means that what follows is a partial list and it implies that other
things may also belong in the list. The term “includes”, on the other hand is a
limiting term that indicates only the specific items listed may be included.] Federal Reserve
notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking
associations.

Sec. 2 The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of
section 43 of the Act entitled “An Act to relieve the existing national
economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise
revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to
provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide
for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and of other purposes”,
approved May 12, 1933, is amended to read as follows:

“All coins and currencies of the
United Stated (including [Due to the use of the word “including,” other things may
also be valid currency.] Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of the Federal
Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined
or issued, shall be legal tender [Just because other forms of payment
are not listed does not exclude them from being valid forms of legal tender.
You will notice that checks and credit cards are accepted but these instruments
are not listed.] for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties,
and dues, except that gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of
tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at
valuation in proportion to their actual weight.’

One sample court case that ruled on
the legality of HJR 192 was GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. HENWOOD, 307 US
247 (1939). This case held that HJR 192 was lawful. Some interesting excerpts
are included below.

… Analysis of the terms of the
Resolution discloses, first, the Congress declared certain types of contractual
provisions against public policy in terms so broad as to include then existing
contracts, as well as those thereafter to be made. In addition, future use of
such proscribed provisions was expressly prohibited, whether actually contained
in an obligation payable in money of the United States or separately ‘made with
respect thereto.’ This proscription embraced ‘every provision’ purporting to
give an obligee a right to require payment in (1)
gold; (2) a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States; or (3) in an amount of United States money measured
by gold or a particular kind of United States coin or currency.

… Congress – apparently to obviate
any possible misunderstanding as to the breadth of its objective – ended, with
studied precision, a catchall second sentence sweeping in ‘every obligation’,
existing or future, ‘payable in money of the United States’, irrespective of
whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect
thereto. ’The obligations hit at by Congress
were those ‘payable in money of the United
States.’ All such obligations were declared dischargeable ‘upon payment,
dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency (of the United States) which at the
time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts.’

… That
which the Joint Resolution made dischargeable was the debt – the monetary
obligation to pay.

… Congress
sought to outlaw all contractual provisions which
require debtors, who have bound themselves
to pay United
States dollars, to pay a greater number of dollars than promised. The Resolution intended that debtors under
obligation to pay dollars should not have their
debts tied to any fixed value of particular
money, but that their entire obligations should be measured by and tied to the
actual number of dollars promised, dollar for
dollar.

… The enacting part of the resolution
proscribes ‘every provision … which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of
coin or currency, or an amount in money of the United States measured thereby’, and declares ‘Every obligation, heretofore or
hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or
made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar,
in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender …’
‘Obligation’, it states, ‘means an obligation … payable in money of the
United States’. Thus the resolution proclaims that it is aimed at gold clauses
and declares, if language is to be taken in its plain and most obvious sense,
that provisions requiring payment in gold dollars or measured by gold are
illegal and that every promise or obligation payable in money of the United
States’ shall be discharged ‘dollar for dollar’ in legal tender currency.

As a result of HJR 192, the people can no longer pay their debts. They have nothing of value to
give in exchange for the goods and services they need. According to HJR 192, we
can only discharge our debts. This was a
huge change in our society. But very few people realized what had
occurred.

The following diagram shows what happened when HJR 192 was
passed. You will notice that some entities are inside a box. These are what we
are calling “the public.” Men contributed their gold and other assets and
became beneficiaries of a public trust but “persons” are considered impostors.
So knowing ones status when attempting to access the benefits of the trust is
vital. Everything inside the box either serves as a fiduciary or a manager of
the trust. The Secretary of the Treasury also serves as the trustee and the
receiver of the U.S. bankruptcy. The person in this position is the only
individual who can see both inside the box, the public, and outside the box.

EXEMPTION

Creator: UNITED
STATES Congress

HJR 192, June 5, 1933

He who has the gold, pays the bills– OR – provides an exemption!

Title to Property

We have alluded to the fact that other items were donated to
“the public” to serve as collateral for the U.S. bankruptcy. The quote from the
congressional record indicates that “all the homes and other property of all
the people in the Nation” would be mortgaged. Beginning in 1933 or earlier, a
system was set up to accomplish this objective. To understand this concept, we
will have to explore the meaning of the word “title.” To accomplish this, we
will examine various kinds of title.

Title. Real Property Title. Title is the means whereby the owner of
lands [or any other tangible assets such as a car] has the just
possession of his property. The union of all the elements which constitute
ownership. Full independent and fee ownership. The right to or ownership in
land; also, the evidence of such ownership…. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th
Edition]

Absolute title. As applied to title to land, an exclusive title, or
at least a title which excludes all others not compatible with it. An absolute title to land cannot exist at the same
time in different persons or in different governments.
[This
suggests that various aspects of title can be held by different parties.] See also Fee simple. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th
Edition]

Fee simple. Absolute. A fee simple absolute estate limited absolutely to a man and his heirs and assigns forever without limitation or condition. An absolute or fee-simple estate is one in which the owner is entitled to the entire property, with unconditional power of disposition during his life, and descending to his heirs and legal representatives upon his death interstate. Such estate is unlimited as to duration, disposition, and descendibility. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

A term which is very similar to “fee simple” is allodium.

Allodium. Land held absolutely in one’s own right, and not of any
lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. An estate held
by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duties is
due on account thereof. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

From the above definitions, we see that there are multiple
“elements which constitute ownership.” Title can be divided into two distinct
parts: “equitable title” and “legal title.”

Legal title. One cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or on
which is complete and perfect so far as regards the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably
entitled thereto; in either case, the antithesis of “equitable title.” … [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th
Edition]

Equitable title. A right to the
party to whom it belongs to have the legal title transferred to him; or the beneficial interest of one person whom equity
regards as the real owner, although the legal title is vested in another. See
also Equitable ownership. [Black’s Law
Dictionary, 5th Edition]

Equitable ownership. The ownership interest of one who has
equitable as contrasted with legal ownership of property as in the case of a
trust beneficiary. Ownership rights which are protected in equity. See also Equitable interest. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th
Edition]

Equitable interest. The interest of a beneficiary under a trust is
considered equitable as contrasted with the interest of the trustee which is a
legal interest because the trustee has legal as contrasted with equitable
title. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

The above definitions make it clear that the right to
property is divided between equitable and legal title. The legal title portion
is the “right of … possession but which carries no beneficial interest in the
property”. The equitable title portion carries the beneficial interest portion
of the title. Based upon these definitions, we would suggest that when we buy
property we are only given the legal title and therefore only have the right of
possession. This means when we buy land and a house we can live on the land and
in the house. But we suggest that the county where it exists and is registered
acts as the trustee to hold the equitable title, or beneficial interest, for
the beneficiaries (the people). The county is the trustee over the equitable
interest and we pay trustee fees to the county in the form of property taxes.
One who holds property as fee simple or in allodium would pay no property
taxes. In the early 1900s, virtually all property was held in allodium and no
property taxes were paid.

We would suggest that these same principles of title apply
to virtually all other things of value. We hold the right of possession and the
government at some level (county, state, federal) acts as trustee to hold the
equitable interest. In the article about the straw man, we saw that your birth
certificate is registered when you are born. This means the government holds
title to your straw man’s name. When you get married, you get a marriage
license that is registered with the state. Some have suggested that this gives
the state trusteeship over the equitable interest in the fruit of the marriage,
the children. That is why the state, through child protective services, can
take your children whenever they deem it appropriate. When you buy a car, the
title is registered to the state. We pay trustee fees to the state every year
in the form of license plate fees.

So we see that the government, as trustees, holds equitable
interest in your (forefather’s) gold, your home, your children, and your cars.
This leads us to ask a critical question. What were we given in exchange for all of these assets? Our parents,
grandparents or great grand parents were given paper money for their gold but
this was not an exchange. The gold had real
value but the paper money was worthless. The government needed the gold and
your other assets as collateral against their bankruptcy. But what have we, the
people, been given in exchange for all of these things? We were certainly due
something of substance.

We would suggest that we, the people, have been placed in
the position of being the creditors to the government. We are owed a huge debt
because the government has used our property and substance to help with their
bankruptcy. We have been duped into believing that we are responsible to repay
the national debt. But we have, in fact, been the surety for the debt. The
following quote sheds some light on the idea of a debtor.

Debtors are also principles and surety; the principal debtor is
bound as between him and his surety to pay the whole debt, and if the surety
pay it, he will be entitled to recover against the principal. [Bouvier’s Law
Dictionary 1856]

This quote indicates that there is a difference between the
principal debtor (the government) and the surety (the people). It plainly says
the principal debtor is responsible to pay back the debt. But if we, as the
surety, do pay the debt, the surety is entitled to recover the cost from the
debtor. We have been paying the debt with our property, our labor and our
taxes. We are owed a great deal.

Another way of looking at our monetary system is to say that
everything in our society is prepaid. All money is backed by the people and
their property. Without us, there would be no money in our current system.
Everything in society has been paid for at the manufacturing level with the
money that was created from us and our property. Therefore, everything in existence
in our society is an extension of what we are owed and therefore everything is
pre-paid by us and for us.

How much are we owed for all that we have given? One way to
answer this is to see how much “money” was created from each of us. One person
tried to find the answer to this question by sending a FOIA (Freedom of
Information Act) request. This person asked how much money had been created
from his/her social security number. A letter was returned explaining that the
government could not provide a full list of the Federal Reserve Notes that had
been created from the social security number unless the person was willing to
send them $2800, at 10¢/page, to provide a copying cost. This means there were
a total of 28,000 pages. A few pages were attached to the letter that listed
Federal Reserve Note serial numbers and value of each note. Based upon this
information, let’s see if we can create a model to estimate the amount of money
this 28,000 pages would represent. Let’s assume that each page contained two columns
of note numbers and denominations and that there were two columns per page, a
total of 60 notes per page. Let’s further assume the there is an even
distribution of the following note denominations evenly distributed across all
the pages: $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100. This would mean that 280,000 notes
of each denomination would be listed. These assumptions would yield a total of
$52,080,000. This is just an estimate, but it should give you some idea that
the government has created an enormous amount of money from each of us.

The Exemption – What We Are Owed

What do we get in exchange for all that has been created
from us? We would suggest that what the people are owed is manifest in two
ways: the people are beneficiaries in the trust and the people have been given
an exemption. In the broadest terms, we
call what is owed us an exemption.

Exemption. Freedom from a general duty or service; immunity form a
general burden, tax or charge. Immunity from certain legal obligations …
[Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition]

We have been given an exemption
from having to pay our debts. We now have
the ability to discharge our debts. Do you
suppose there is a way to use this exemption to discharge our debts by
accessing what is owed to us and held in trust? We believe this is quite
possible.

To begin to understand how we might
access this exemption, we need to look at various forms of payment. We already
know that that “all coins and currencies of the United States (including
Federal Reserve notes … ) … shall be legal tender.” But it appears that there
are other forms of payment which are also valid that are not included in those
listed above. A quote from the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) will illustrate
this point

§ 2.304. Price Payable in Money, Goods, Realty, or Otherwise (a) The price can be made payable in money or otherwise. If it is payable in whole or in part in goods each party is a seller of the goods which he is to transfer.

This quote makes it clear that we
may discharge our debts in something other than money, goods, or realty. What
could this mean? A quote from a Federal Reserve publication will shed some
light on this question.

Modern monetary systems have a fiat
base – literally money by decree – with depository institutions, acting as
fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base acting
in part as reserves. The decree appears on the currency notes: “This note is
legal tender for all debts, public and private.” While
no individual could refuse to accept such money for debt repayment, exchange
contracts could easily be composed to thwart
its use in everyday commerce. However, a forceful explanation as to why
money is accepted is that the federal government requires it as payment for tax
liabilities. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a demand for
the pure fiat dollar. [“Money, Credit and Velocity,” Review, May, 1982, Vol.
64. No. 5, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, p. 25]

The Federal Reserve is saying that
the people could easily replace the use of Federal Reserve Notes in daily life
by using exchange contracts. This is amazing news. It means that we can use
exchange contracts to discharge out debts. We will leave the discussion of what
an exchange contract is and how it might be used for another essay.

For now, let’s turn our attention to what we currently use
for money or call money, Federal Reserve Notes. What is a note?

Note. An instrument containing an express and absolute promise of
signer (i.e. maker) to pay to a specified person or order, or bearer, a
definite sum of money at a specified time… [Black’s Law Dictionary 5th
Edition]

So a note is a promise to pay. The
definition says that the note must be signed. If you look at a FRN you will
notice there are two signatures (two witnesses) promising to pay, the Treasurer
of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury. So a FRN is a pledge on
the part of the government to pay a debt. This means that an FRN is a liability
and not an asset. It means that every FRN, currency, that is in circulation is
actually a liability.

Accounting

If our currency is a liability, then
there must also be some assets to balance the books. So it is apparent that we
need to understand some basic accounting. First, let’s first see how accounting
and account are defined.

Accounting. An act or system of making up or settling accounts; a statement of account, or a debit
and credit in financial transaction… Rendition of an account, either
voluntarily or by order of a court. In the latter case, it imports a rendition
of a judgment from the balance ascertained to be due. the term may include
payment of the amount due… Major accounting methods are the cash basis and the
accrual basis. [Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition]

Account. A detailed statement of the mutual demands in the nature
of debit and credit between parties, arising out of contract or some fiduciary
relation. A statement in writing, of debits and credits, or of receipts and payments;
a list of items of debits and credits, with their respective dates. … Any
account with a bank; including a checking, time, interest or saving account. …
Account means any right to payment for goods sold or leased or for services
rendered which is not evidence by an instrument or chattel paper, whether or
not it has been earned by performance… [Black’s Law Dictionary 5th
Edition]

These definitions suggests that an account is something to
keep track of debits and credits and accounting would be the practice of
keeping track of debits and credits. Accounts are only needed when payment of
goods and services are not made in full at the time of purchase. When you buy
something on credit (house, credit card, car), an account is established to
keep track of how much you owe. You open a checking account when you no longer
want to pay for everything with cash. The checking account allows the bank to
keep track of how much “money” you have. Black’s 7th edition lists a
number of different kinds of accounts, but for our purposes, there are three
that are particularly interesting.

closed account. An account that no further credits or debits may be
added to but that remains open for adjustment and setoff. [Black’s Law Dictionary,
7th Edition]

offset account. One of two accounts that balance against each other
and cancel each other out when the books are closed. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th
Edition]

open account. 1. An unpaid or unsettled account. 2. An account that
is left open for ongoing debit and credit entries and that has a fluctuating
balance until each party finds it convenient to settle and close… [Black’s Law
Dictionary, 7th Edition]

From these definitions it becomes clear that so long as
there is still activity occurring, an account remains open but once all public
activity (debit and credit) has ceased, the account is closed. When you make
the final payment on a loan, the account is closed. When you no longer need a
checking account, you withdrawal all the funds and close it. But a closed
account remains open for two types of transactions, adjustments and setoffs.
The idea of an offset account suggests that when two parties owe one another,
setoffs can be used to cancel out opposing debts. The definition of setoff will
give us another clue on how to use our exemption.

setoff. … 2. A debtor’s right to reduce the amount of a debt by any
sum the creditor owes the debtor; the counterbalancing sum owed by the
creditor. … Set-off signifies the subtraction or taking away of one demand from
another opposite or cross demand, so as to distinguish the smaller demand and
reduce the greater by the amount of the less… [Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th
Edition]

It appears that if two parties owe one another opposing
sums, a portion of the larger debt can be discharged by the amount of the
smaller debt. The one who is owed the larger amount is called the creditor and
the one who owes the smaller amount is the debtor. We have already seen that we
are the creditor over the government, who is the debtor, and that it owes us
vast sums. Since we are the creditor, it would appear that there should be some
method of using what the government owes us to setoff what we owe to other
creditors. We have already been introduced to the concept of a bill of
exchange. Various people and groups have researched how a bill of exchange and
other instruments might be used to access our exemption in order to discharge
our debts. They have discovered that these instruments can be effective.

Our goal is to eventually discover how a man can use bills
of exchange or other instruments to discharge all of his debts. The
implications of such a discovery would be staggering. It would mean complete
financial freedom for those who discover and learn to apply these
principles.

It is beyond the scope of this essay to cover the exact
mechanisms for using these instruments to discharge debts. Our purpose here was
to demonstrate that “We the People” are the creditors and that the government
owes us a huge debt which we call our exemption. Another essay will cover
exactly how to gain control over our straw man and then when can see the
mechanics of how to use our exemption.

Spiritual Applications

There is only one additional topic that we need to cover.
This topic is only of interest to those of you who are spiritual and
specifically those who are Christians. For these, we want to conclude this
essay with a spiritual view of the material that we have covered.

In chapter 2 of Genesis, we see a
picture of an ideal existence where man lived in harmony with the Creator, God.
In this setting, all of man’s needs were met. Adam had an abundance of food
(Gen. 2:8-9). God had told Adam that he could eat of any tree in garden except
the tree that was in the midst of the garden, the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil (Gen 2:16-17). Adam did not have to work to make a living, there was
not sickness, no disease, no death, no debt, and no taxes. There was not money
because there was not debt and there was no accounting system since there was
no debt. All was right with the world.

Then Adam disobeyed God and sinned
(Gen. 3:1-6). At this point, Adam and Eve recognized that they were naked
(v.7). God covered their nakedness with skins of animals (v.21). This was not
done without the shedding of blood, which gives us a clue into God’s economy.
This introduced the first debt into the world. God had already told Adam that
if he ate of that one tree that he would die. So Adam owed God his life. Adam’s
sin disrupted the perfect fellowship he had enjoyed with God. The sin also
disrupted the complete provision for his need that he had enjoyed. Adam was
told that he would have to work (by the sweat of his brow) to meet his own
needs (v.17-19). He was also removed from the provision and abundance of the
garden (v.2324).

As we reflect on these events, we
see that mankind owed God the first debt. Adam’s sin was the first debt that
existed on earth. By extension, this means that all debt that exists derives
from this debt to God. God is the original creditor and all men are debtors
under him. One of the great themes in the scriptures is the payment of this
debt.

As the story of God’s relationship with man unfolds in the
Old Testament, we see that God had an economy for the payment of debt that man
owed him. God required the blood of animals to pay for sin. We get an early
glimpse of this in Gen. 4:3-5 in the offering of Abel and Cain. Abel’s offering
of blood was acceptable to God but Cain’s offering of fruit was not acceptable.
Later in Genesis, we see that Abraham offered a ram to God (Gen. 22:13). Then
in Leviticus the understanding of God’s economy for the payment of sins becomes
very clear. In Leviticus 4:135, detailed instructions are given about how the
blood of animals would atone for sins. But Leviticus makes it clear that the
blood of animals was only a temporary payment for sins. A single offering of
blood would not atone for all future sin. Offering of blood had to be repeated
often to cover new sin.

But God had a better plan in mind. God’s plan from the
beginning of creation was to buy mankind back from his debt of sin. He had
planned to offer the blood of His own son to redeem (buy us back) from sin (1
Peter 1:19-20). The blood of Jesus, was a payment that was far superior to the
blood of animals. Jesus only had to offer up his blood once for all time (Heb
7:27; 9:11-14; 10:10-12). Jesus has paid all the debt (for all of our past sin
and for any sin that we have yet to commit) that each of us owed to the Father.
For those who accept the sacrifice of Jesus, all of your past debts to God are
paid and all of your future debts to God are pre-paid. Not just spiritual debts
but economic as well. Remember that God was the original creditor and that all
debt was owed to Him. When the Father was paid
in full by the sacrifice of the Son, all debts were paid for those who accept
the sacrifice of Jesus on their behalf.

Those who are in Christ have returned to a place of perfected
fellowship with the Father. Jesus promises us that if we seek first His kingdom
and His righteousness that all of our needs would be met (Matt. 6:32-33). He
also promised that He came so that we may have and enjoy life in abundance
(John 10:10). Though Jesus was rich in heaven, yet for our sakes He became poor
on earth so that through His poverty we might become rich (2 Cor. 8:9). The
Father has promised to supply all that we need through to the riches of glory,
which are in Christ Jesus (Phil. 4:19). Jesus said to John that the “sons are exempt” (Matt 17:24-27), which reminds us of
our exemption. These verses do not remind us of lack but of plenty and
abundance. These promises are not for the sweet by and by when we get to
heaven. They are for here and now while we are on this earth. It is my firm
conviction that the death of Christ has spiritually placed us back into the
Garden of Eden with the Father. All of our needs are met and we have an
abundance to share with others.

The sacrifice of Jesus
is the spiritual foundation of the earthly reality of the exemption.
Jesus has paid all our debts. In fact, our debts are pre-paid. He supplies
everything we need. We appropriate this provision and bounty by accepting the
gift He offers us. This means that the exemption is a physical reflection of a
spiritual reality. It also suggests that the exemption may well be God’s
provision to accomplish in the physical realm what Christ accomplished in the
spiritual realm.

At this point we should explore bondage at a national level.
In the Old Testament, we see multiple examples of a period of bondage lasting
70 years. The bondage was at a national level for rebelling against God. For
example, the Israelites were in bondage in Egypt for three sets of 70 years, or
210 years. There was another period of bondage for Israel in Babylon. This one
also lasted for 70 years (Jer. 25:11). Daniel, the prophet, read the law and
found that the people were supposed to be coming out of captivity. He prayed
about it and God sent an angel who told him he was right. When the 70 years in
Babylon were fulfilled and the Jews were free, only a handful chose to leave
captivity. Those wanted to be free understood and applied the law and chose
freedom.

A more recent example of 70 years of bondage can be seen in
Russia which was enslaved to communism in 1917. Seventy years later, in 1987,
the communist block in Europe fell apart. You cannot keep a nation in compelled
servitude longer than 70 years. Everyone in the Soviet Union did not leave slavery.

We, in this country, have also been in a period of bondage
for 70 years. I believe this bondage began no later than March 9, 1933, when
Congress passed the emergency banking legislation and later took the gold away.
We are now in a time where we too can choose to be free. You can choose to
embrace freedom principles and walk away from bondage. The choice is yours. I
pray that you will choose wisely.

If you choose to be financially free, then we should also
talk about the fact that freedom is found in Jesus. The scriptures tell us that
where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom (2 Cor. 3:17). It also tells
us to no longer take on the yoke of (economic) slavery (Gal. 5:1). It further
instructs us not to turn our freedom into an opportunity for the flesh but
rather to serve our brothers (Gal. 5:13). The Apostle Peter warns us to not use
our freedom for evil but to continue as bondservants of Christ. These
scriptures lead us to some questions which I will ask you to prayerfully
consider.

If we can successfully use our exemption to discharge all of
debts, then we have no need to work to earn a living. If that were true, then
why should we work? The scripture is very clear about the need to work. The Old
Testament says that man is under a curse because of our sin and that we must
work to eat (Gen 3:17-19). I believe that Jesus fully satisfied the requirement
of the law under the old covenant. However, the New Testament (the covenant for
those who are in Christ) says that if a man does not work he should not eat (2
Thess. 3:10). I believe that even under the new covenant that we are commanded
to work. But that leaves the question of what kind of work. There are two kinds
of work: work you do to be paid and work you do to serve others. If there is no
need to work to be paid, since all of your needs can be met through the
exemption, then we are free to work to serve others.

What kind of service should we render to our brothers? What
would you do with your life if you did not have to worry about earning money to
support yourself and your family? What interests and desires has God placed
within your heart? I believe God has created each one of us with unique gifts,
abilities and interests. I believe that we will be most fulfilled when we are
doing the thing for which we were created. I would encourage you to begin a
journey of discovery with God to learn what He has placed within you. Ask the
Lord to show you what you are to do with your life and your time to serve Him
and others.

Further Study

We have not covered the exact mechanism of how to use a bill of exchange to discharge a debt nor what must be done to get into a position to be able to issue a bill of exchange. The next article that should be reviewed is entitled Redemption, which covers how to regain control of your straw man. Then you should study the article, Using Your Exemption.